Trump is trying to reinvent 1950 with his tariffs. He should be planning for 2050

CNN - Apr 8th, 2025

President Donald Trump's recent economic policy changes, including the implementation of sweeping tariffs to boost U.S. manufacturing, have drawn criticism from industry experts. They argue that these measures, along with reduced funding for universities and proposed changes to the CHIPS Act, could hinder America's progress in the global artificial intelligence (AI) race against China. While the Trump administration emphasizes the importance of leading in AI and has announced significant investments in AI infrastructure, economists warn that the tariffs may not achieve the desired economic success. These policies come at a critical time as China's AI sector shows rapid advancements, exemplified by the recent unveiling of a powerful model by Chinese startup DeepSeek.

The broader implications of Trump's policies could be detrimental to the U.S. economy and its position in tech innovation. Manufacturing in the U.S. has been on a decline, and the service sector has become the dominant force in employment. Economists caution against repeating historical mistakes like the Smoot-Hawley Act, which exacerbated the Great Depression. Additionally, Trump's immigration policies, particularly those affecting foreign students crucial to AI research, further complicate the U.S.'s competitive stance. With AI's growing importance in global leadership, the U.S. needs to reassess its strategies to maintain its edge, especially in light of the CHIPS Act's success in attracting investments in semiconductor research and manufacturing.

Donald Trump China Tariffs Artificial Intelligence Economic Policy Global Trade Deep Seek Chips Act U.S. Manufacturing

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a critical examination of President Trump's economic policies, particularly in relation to manufacturing and AI. While it presents timely and relevant issues, the analysis is somewhat one-sided, lacking diverse perspectives and comprehensive evidence to support its claims. The article's clarity and accessibility are strengths, making complex topics understandable for a general audience. However, the lack of transparency and robust sourcing weakens its credibility. To fully engage readers and influence public opinion, a more balanced narrative with detailed evidence and a wider range of expert opinions would be beneficial. Despite these limitations, the article effectively raises important questions about the future of US economic and technological policy.

Accuracy

The article presents several claims regarding President Trump's economic policies and their impact on the AI race. While some claims are supported by general economic understanding, such as the historical decline in manufacturing jobs and the rise of the services sector, others lack direct evidence. For instance, the assertion that tariffs will sabotage America's AI momentum requires more specific data linking these policies to AI development setbacks. The article also mentions the impact of the CHIPS Act, but it fails to provide detailed evidence of its claimed success or how Trump's policies directly counteract this. Overall, while the article aligns with some established economic trends, it lacks comprehensive evidence for its more specific claims.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a critical view of Trump's policies, with limited representation of alternative perspectives. It cites experts who critique the administration's focus on manufacturing and tariffs, but it does not include voices that might support these policies or provide a rationale behind them. This creates a one-sided narrative that may overlook potential benefits or strategic intentions behind the policies. Including a broader range of expert opinions could have provided a more balanced view of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting its arguments in a logical sequence. It effectively outlines the main issues, such as the decline in manufacturing and the importance of AI, making it accessible to a general audience. However, some complex economic concepts could be further simplified or explained for readers unfamiliar with the topic. Overall, the language is straightforward, and the article maintains a consistent tone, aiding comprehension.

Source quality

The article references experts like Susan Ariel Aaronson and Andres Sawicki, which adds some credibility. However, it lacks direct citations from primary sources or detailed data to substantiate many of its claims. The reliance on unnamed economists and a general statement from the Institute for Supply Management survey weakens the article's authority. More robust sourcing, including direct quotes from official documents or detailed economic reports, would enhance the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the methodologies or sources behind its claims. It fails to provide links to the data or reports it references, such as Labor Department statistics or specific economic analyses. The lack of transparency in how conclusions are drawn or how experts' opinions were sourced limits the reader's ability to assess the validity of the arguments. Greater transparency about the basis for claims and the context of expert quotes would improve the article's credibility.